Proposition 8
November 25, 2008
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
By John Fay
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Gay marriage? Let’s stop and think about this
Few issues of cultural importance in America long escape the gaze of a Simpsons’ episode.
In the episode titled “There’s Something About Marrying,” the city of Springfield legalizes gay marriage, prompting Homer Simpson to become an Episcopal priest in order to reap lucrative benefits for conducting such unions.
Homer very quickly realizes that he could make even more money in nuptials if he is less discriminating, and by the end of the episode he’s proceeding to marry the Sea Captain to the mermaid-shaped masthead of his ship.
We laugh about scenes like this and say they could never happen; of course, that’s what our grandparents were saying about gay marriage a generation ago.
Now, I realize the gay marriage issue surrounding the California voters’ decision on Proposition 8 is extremely emotional for a lot of people, and I respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis.
The decision of California’s Supreme Court in May to legalize gay marriage, which Prop. 8 overturned, was extremely rash. There is nothing constitutional about gay marriage on a state or federal level. For gay marriage to even fit within the court’s jurisdiction, it must have some basis in constitutionality.
Yet the court argued that forbidding marriage rights to gays is discrimination, “like a person’s race or gender.” Race is a biological state; homosexuality is more of an emotional condition, and we should not, for that reason alone, start passing laws condoning it.
Being homosexual, like other emotional tendencies, doesn’t make someone a bad person, but it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied.
Now, there are several major problems with legalizing gay marriage. Once you’ve legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union? If the only criteria is that people love each other, then who says it’s wrong for a 70-year-old man to marry 10 underage girls?
Also, the Christian concept of marriage predates any state-sanctioned licensing program, which means marriage is an inherently religious concept in America. Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment.
There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4.
Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs.
This sad reaction illustrates the danger of gay marriage. Now, this is not to suggest that all or even most supporters of gay marriage have acted inappropriately.
Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others.
It’s hard to tell someone they should respect basic social rules — such as not harassing people for honest disagreement — when they already reject other customs, such as traditional marriage.
So, let’s think long and hard about this before overturning a tradition that has been in place for 2,000 years.
If traditional marriage is overturned, it won’t be the last tradition to be abolished by our government, and some of those will be ones none of us want to lose.
Reach columnist John Fay at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Proposition 8 disappointing
By Sarah Gaither
Photo by Matthew Jackson.
Proposition 8 disappointing
It is difficult for me to express how profound a disappointment the passage of Proposition 8 is.
Approved on Nov. 4, Prop. 8 stripped homosexual California couples of their right to marry, defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. As a contrast to the unprecedented election of a black man to the U.S. presidency, the proposition’s passage is a reminder of how much progress in civil rights there is left to be made.
While it is sad to learn that 52 percent of Californians view homosexual love as inherently inferior to heterosexual love, it is outraging and continually baffling that the proposition’s backers see enshrining this prejudice in law as just.
The arguments used to defend the proposition are feeble at best. The argument that marriages are intended for the production of children belies the reality that many heterosexual couples are childless. Are they to be denied the right of marriage too?
The reasoning that heterosexual marriages are the fundamental unit of society and thus deserving of “protection” from untraditional forms of family, is unfounded. Not only does it rely on normative gender assumptions, but it assumes that it is the government’s role to both determine what forms of love and family are acceptable and to enforce them.
A recent parody of this logic has been used in an anti-Prop. 8 ad, which calls to protect traditional marriage by outlawing divorce. With divorce having garnered no such ire from the traditional marriage establishment, the hypocrisy is plain.
Other arguments that claim gay marriage is outside the historical norms of society make the mistake of assuming that the longevity of norms indicates their legitimacy. As Keith Olbermann remarked in his moving commentary on gay marriage, in 16 states interracial marriage remained illegal up until 1967. Only until the United States “redefined” marriage did it become legal for people of different races to wed.
Then, as now, discrimination against individuals stepping outside the norms of society supports the unjust withholding of rights granted to other citizens. In this light, snide comments made by Prop. 8 supporters that “everyone has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex” are especially off base. I can imagine someone 50 years ago arguing that “everyone has the equal right to marry members of their own race.”
Perhaps most significantly, the exclusion of homosexuals from the right of marriage wholly breaches the division between church and state by allowing religious beliefs to determine state policy, however unconstitutional they may be.
And those who argue that Prop. 8 is justified because it passed with a democratic majority should Google “tyranny of the majority” and consider that a majority of Americans once opposed the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the desegregation of schools.
It’s apparent, given the logical irrationality of the common arguments made against gay marriage, that the support of Prop. 8 is driven not by reason, but by emotion. The sooner that anti-Prop. 8 organizers realize this, the sooner they will rally voters to their cause.
In the anti-Prop. 8 ads aired prior to Election Day, there was a remarkable absence of gay couples. By not emphasizing the common commitment, humanness and love of homosexual couples, organizers missed a key opportunity.
It is easy to forget in a relatively open-minded city like Seattle that the vast majority of people have little to no contact with same sex partners.
Thus, their conception of gay relationships are composed almost entirely of conjecture.
For this reason, it’s key that pro-same-sex-marriage efforts, in tandem with battling this discrimination in the courts, encourage understanding. They must emphasize an emotionally-based understanding of these couples’ experiences.
That is what this is about — the universal human quest for love unbounded by gender and unhindered by law.
Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.
654 Comments
#292 Jess
Editor in Chief Sarah Jeglum made the following comments to Qweerty.com
"The illustration was meant to illustrate the columnist's slippery-slope argument about legalizing gay marriage. I hope that answers the question."
When asked a.) Just whose idea it was to run an article that was virulently homophobic, b.) Whose idea was it to to illustrate it with a sheep-on-guy image and c.) If it ever occurred to The Daily that equating gay marriage with bestiality and pedophilia might offend well, everybody? Her reply:
"Just like any other illustrated article, the article was read by the illustrator and an illustration was drawn to reflect points made in the column. I can't speak for Matthew Jackson, but I believe he was illustrating the following point made by John Fay: "Once you've legalized gay marriage, why not polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union?"
The implications of the article were considered, as with any article we print."
The full Queerty.com article can be read here:
http://www.queerty.com/university-of-...
Homosexuality is not a "problem". My mother was born gay, and for her, the major "problem" in the first 40-plus years of her life, was that she was pressured into living a lie. For her, leaving a "traditional" marriage, and coming out, was the Solution to her misery.
As a recent UW grad, I am deeply ashamed Fey's article was published.
This article is disgusting and I am terrified that this could be published in a newspaper.
The author may be ignorant, but i am ashamed that the editor would let this be printed.
This is just another example of why the Daily is complete trash.
The only thing the Daily is good for is starting a campfire or wiping your ass when you run out of toilet paper.
It might be too soon for this, but I think everyone should take a moment to look at the overall social context of John Fay's article.
Many of the things Fay states are simply ignorant (perhaps willfully so) and hurtful. However, as much as I disagree with his argument, I have a hard time believing that it is "hate speech." It's clear that he does not or chooses not to understand gay people. But as far as him being a hatemonger, that's a tall charge and I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Also, we should recognize that it's probably a good thing that this article was published. Two reasons: 1) it makes it harder for the UW College Republicans to claim that they are stripped of their 1st Amendment rights, and 2) it educates the rest of us about the prevalent arguments against gay marriage. I address each point in more detail below.
1. Remember that fringe groups (like the UWCRs on this campus) become only more committed and extreme in their views when they perceive themselves as victims or martyrs. For that reason, I'm glad that most of the comments in this forum address Fay's tortured logic rather than resort to ad hominem attacks.
2. Although Fay's views are anathema in a city like Seattle, we should realize that his article reflects what MANY of people think in the country overall. Liberal progressives need to know how to counter these arguments, and we won't get much practice if we live in an ideological echo-chamber.
Try to find some solace that Fay's article was the only thing The Daily could find for its "point-counterpoint" format. If this is the best the UWCRs can dish out, then maybe the country will be ok, in the long run, after all.
Don't blame The Daily too much, either. We need a little chaos sometimes. This is college, folks: if your world view isn't challenged and you're completely comfortable in your beliefs, then you're doing something wrong.
Even so, the Daily needs to take some responsibility for the articles it publishes. It's one thing to provide a counterargument to Seattle's liberal rhetoric, but it's another entirely to equate gay marriage with bestiality, incest, polygamy and pedophilia in one fell swoop.
Yes, let's stop and think about this. Hmmm....the Daily and its staff are ingorant pieces of shit. Gay marriage is not an emotional problem and this is not an opinion article. I'm thinking that the author is probably a sheep fucker himself. Simply un-fucking-believable
What do you expect from a guy who watches the Simpsons for in-depth analysis of social issues?
Simply sad, and the Daily Editors need to take responsibility for this. It is one thing to have an opinion, it's another to warrant that opinion print space in a campus-wide publication. John Fay has a right to be ignorant, the Daily, does not.
That was a very well written article. It is sad that so many are blind to the dangers of being pro dysfunction. There was a time when guy on guy relationships was considered perverse by the general public. That time has past. If we accept this perversion what is to stop all forms of perversion.
You have a lot to learn, John. This article reflects a basic lack of understanding of the world.
This is one of the most ignorant, ridiculous pieces of writing I have ever read. Unbelievable.
This article is horribly written and extremely offensive. If you're going to be an closed minded asshole, at least attempt to prove that you have a brain and can create a logical argument. I am appalled that the daily published this. Yes, it is an opinion, but it is not an example of quality writing and it is not a well supported argument...go fuck yourself john fay. You too matthew jackson.
I am glad that there is widespread discussion on this issue, and so I have decided to give a short opinion of my own.
I feel like the first mistake that was made, was that the government gave privileged rights to married individuals in the first place. As soon as the tax code began to include deductions and tax cuts to benefit married couples, the government overstepped the line separating church and state. Furthermore, I believe that the easiest way to correct this mistake would be to think of a neutral term to describe couples in a relationship that is worthy of the benefits given to married couples. (e.g, shared income, claiming one another as dependents, etc). This would be filed with the state, instead of a "marriage license." That way, any couple, gay or straight, would have the rights (and in certain cases, the unfortunate tax consequences) of being "married", but the word marriage, which is inherently a religious term, can remain protected. The concept of marriage can remain social, and the ABC1000 form that would be filed with the state would be for governmental purposes.
Leave it to different denominations to decide if they wish to "recognize and allow" homosexual couples to marry. While it may be unfortunate that some denominations don't allow it, homosexual couples have the right to find denominations that do, or establish a new religion altogether.
Wow! What a prick!
This is wrong on so many levels I can only hope you're not sinking too deep into student loans only to emerge from the shallow end of the pool.
You equate homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. Homosexuality by the definition of any psychological or medical practitioner is referred to as an orientation, or sexual direction. It is not classified as a deviance. The others things you refer to actually ARE forms of deviance. (And you need to stop contemplating them.) Therefore, to balance an argument against homosexuals with any of those examples is as valid an argument as saying that gays should not marry because your shorts are riding up (which I suspect is the case). The two points have NOTHING to do with each other. Oh, and by the way, the what next, animals? thing comes from Bill O'Reilly's repertoire. And if he's your example of a journalist then allow me to point you toward some great vocals by Milli Vanilli.
The more fundamental point is why do you care? Why does it matter? Since the moves by courts in several states to allow gay marriages many thousands of gay and lesbian couples have tied the knot. The sun has still risen each day. The mountains have not toppled over. The horsemen aren't riding and the sea hasn't boiled or the moon turned to blood. So why do you care? What does it matter? Does it ruin your day if two loving people embrace if they both happen to have a penis? Does it stop the trains if two loving people kiss and they both happen to have breasts? Does it matter? Does your life change at all?
Love is so rare anymore. We war, we work, we go into debt and we grapple for the remote when Sally Struthers comes on the TV begging for money to feed underprivileged children. Can't we just stand back and let love be? Can't we just accept it without looking at its genitals to make sure its "okay"? Are we so void of love's warmth that we must extinguish it from everyone so we all suffer the cold equally?
What is the average life span of a heterosexual marriage? According to the census, it's about 8 years. I personally know gay and lesbian couples who's relationships have lasted 10's of years - 20+ 30+ and more. So here's a proposal for the health of the future. Let's have a moratorium on heterosexual marriage while we have a period of observation and figure out why gay and lesbian couples are doing it better then the straight pairs are. Or is that the reason we seek to stamp it out? Because they can do it better then we in the straight camp?
Who knows?
Who cares?
Just move on Mr. Fay.
It
does
not
matter
at
all....
Wow... I can see why a personal attack on me is justified. No, I'm not the one attacking someone for having an opinion.
That said, of course I disagree with him completely. I think most of his points were poorly supported, besides which I'm against his whole argument on principle (thanks for calling out my sexuality, that's true friendship).
That said, he does have ONE legitimate point -- who's to say bestiality and polygamy aren't down the road? But also, who's to say that's a bad thing. Just like homosexuality, bestiality and polygamy are already practiced. You may think that they are abhorrent, but lots of people think that about gay marriage.
I think the solution would be scrap the whole government recognition of marriage, so the government isn't put in the role of determining which relationships are legitimate, and people can define marraige however they please.
But by all means, attack me personally. That seems to be the appropriate course of action for stating an opinion that harms exactly no one.
hahahahaha gays suck! WEINERS!
#317, how old are you? 12?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Extra points if you can figure out by whom and where this came from!
We all look back at American history now and say, 'Gee Golly, it sure was wrong for people to own slaves, keep women and minorities from voting or from having good jobs, beat their wives on a regular basis, etc...' My, how TIMES HAVE CHANGED.
By the way, this isn't a country that is run on Church doctrine. If you'd like to look there are plenty of other countries that wouldn't mind alienating you and your lifestyle. Not to mention the freedom you take for granted.
Respectfully Mr. Tripoli (#316), I understand where you're trying to go but utterly disagree with the foundation of your point.
The issue here is gay marriage. Marriage. A marriage is an infinitely more complex journey then just what goes on in the bedroom. It's a life together in all it's great, awful and mostly mundane reality. It's not strictly defined by the marital bed.
A romp with a barn animal is pretty well over once the act is done. I doubt even the most profound devotees of bestiality are curling up in front of the fire with their 'partner' to bleet about their days. And, to my knowledge, no goat has much concern about making the mortgage payment or showing up at back to school night.
A gay marriage is still a committed one-on-one relationship. So your example of polygamy is also completely off the mark.
I realize the point you are trying to make. But you could not have stated it more inappropriately. I profoundly disagree with your minimizing the breath of gay and lesbian relationships as strictly what forms of sex they have. And I dismiss the polygamist analogy as a wrong-headed equating of homosexual as promiscuous.
I suspect you are actually smarter then your posting.
I hope your career is RUINED after this forever.. I sincerely hope you never get any futher than the Daily. You seriously are a disgusting human being.
Hai guyz wuts goin on in dis threadz?
I must debunk the statement Mr. Fay made: "[I] respect their difference of opinion, but let us try and consider the vote from a rational basis."
Firstly, Mr. Fay cannot say he is respectful or rational of other peoples opinions on gay rights if he choses to compare gay rights and gay marriage with a Simpson episode of Homer "proceeding to marry the Sea Captain to the mermaid-shaped masthead of his ship:" As well as comparing gay marriage to "polygamy, incest, bestiality or any other form of union."
If we are going to compare apples to apples and talk about 2000 years of history than I would assume Mr. Fay would also want to bring slavery back: As well as the murder by stoning of adulterers and fornicators. So, comparing apples to apples we would have to say that Mr.Fay is more potentially hazardous to social function than any gay person because he thinks he is better and smarter than the Supreme Court Judges and he is using the newspaper to instigate people against orderly conduct by saying gays are a threat and a danger.
Also, I want to debunk Mr.Fay's statement that "homosexuality is more of an emotional condition." If anyone really believes this they should read about elephants. There is an almost 50/50 chance that an elephant will be homosexual. There are a myriad of biological foundations for a person being born homosexual and could even possibly be that humans are like elephants (almost 50/50). So, marriage should not be regarded a matter of gender but a matter of choice, especially because marriage predates Christianity.
Respectfully posted by a Heterosexual Married Missionary Kid.
P.S. The Daily should be ashamed.
"There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4.
Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs."
Just to set the record straight, how many women and doctors were threatened by religious right fanatics because they either wanted or provided an abortion? Do you remember burning clinics, those are people filled with hate, I don't remember pro-choice people burning down houses of pro-life people. How dare you point to the violance of gay-people while closing your eyes to the violance committed by people from the religious right in the past!
Let's stop and think again who is threat in society.
Wow, what a shitty article. John Fay needs to be taken back into freshman comp and horsewhipped. Your article was not only bigoted and insensitive, but poorly argued. You failed to offer any constructive discussion. Instead, you gave your readers examples of your ignorance.
The Daily staff was routinely criticized for its choices when I was a student there, but I never saw anything like this. Any peer who approved of this going to print should step down. Change majors, Mr. Fay.
I'be been reading the Daily for last two years. Because of this article, I decided to not to read the daily anymore. This article belongs in trash not on the newspaper. SHAME OF YOU!!!
I thinks these pathetic left-side nut jobs and their ridiculous liberal paper can should really reevaluate themselves! These rebuttals are hypocrisy at its worst! Time and time againg The Daily publishes completely degrading and ridiculously biased articles directly attacking the Conservative front and one person decides to stand for his convictions and the Liberals go freakin' wild. I just have to say thank you to the Daily for actually publishing an article that doesn't slander the Conservative side. I didn't think I would ever see that day.
Lastly, Thank you John Fay for speaking the truth regardless of the inevitable backlash you were bound to receive.
Sincerely, Donte Larry
Homosexual and bisexual males have a shorter life expectancy then their heterosexual counterparts. Could that be considered a “problem” with homosexual activity for those men, who are more likely to be exposed too HIV and other STIs?
John Fay, you are a complete jackass.
Are you married? Because I am. To a man, even. For almost ten years. And I can promise you that whether gay people can marry does not change a damn thing about my marriage, except to ensure that we will be spending more time at Macy's looking at registries.
Since when is marriage a Christian concept, anyway? I promise you that Jews were marrying long before the Virgin Birth, and that marriage was an economic institution millennia before that. As someone who most assuredly did not have a Christian wedding, am I unmarried? If so, can I please qualify for more financial aid?
One of the most terrifying things about undergrads pontificating about subjects in which they have no experience is that they really believe their own hype.
And whoever chose the graphic for your article should be fired.
I used to write for and copy edit the Daily. I know it's not a great newspaper, but it's not bad. Don't you owe it -- and yourself -- more than this paranoid homophobic arrogance?
Oh, and by the way, if, like most straight boys you're convinced gay men are out to convert you, let me reassure you: you're not that cute.
Anyone with a basic understanding of biology, history, forensics, or law can tear this article apart at any point. At no point in his rambling, incoherent response did Mr. Fay approach rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having read his article. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Goodbye Daily!
First off, this article is simply offensive, ridiculous, and based on falsities. Most of the comments have addressed this, and many have been very constructive and informative, read those to get the true facts of gay marriage.
One more point I would add: you completely misconstrued the point of the Simpsons episode. It was a satirical view on the extreme claims of gay marriage deteriorating the fundamentals of marriage in society. The marriage of the Sea Captain was not meant to show support against gay marriage, rather it was meant to show the ridiculousness of the claims that marriage will deteriorate into bestiality and the like.
This is an epic failure of the Daily. I'm upset that the writer has embarrassed UW. I hope this is not what all students of College Republicans at UW believe.
To Brett K.:
My point is simply that there will ALWAYS be a new civil rights frontier. We might think some of them are sick and wrong (NAMBLA), or we might sympathize (GLBT community), but the bottom line is that is that continually expanding the definition of which relationships can be recognized by the government isn't enough. It's not the the government's job to validate the love between two, hell even three or four different people. And we should have more self-respect than to seek the government's approval thereof.
While I appreciate differing opinions and embrace diversity as a part of society. This seems like an attack rather than a position statement. These aren't arguments about anything. This is an unprofessional, ridiculous excuse for an opinion editorial. Please, as a journalist, make sure you get your facts together before you write them in publicly read work. This is a campus where people know what they're talking about and will call you out on it. I sincerely hope that the Daily feels bad about this article and publicly apologizes for it. It should have been rejected before the editor finished the piece.
All I can feel is the complete and utter sadness (and anger) that the LGBQT community must feel. As a straight member of the UW community, I cannot even imagine how it must feel to have read this article.
This article, represents all that the LGBQT community abhors: complete and utter ignorance.
Perhaps Fay cannot delve deeper into logical thinking, cannot think harder about how fluid sexuality is, and how expression of love comes in various forms. Perhaps he has yet to experience true and meaningful love. Is he uncomfortable with the subject of male sodomy? Is he uncomfortable with a beautiful woman in complete and utter love with another woman? Is he scared of what occurs behind closed doors in the homes of homoesexuals?
To quote a great Japanese rock band, Guitar Wolf, they say it best:
Love has no borders, nationalities, or genders!
Wow, I really didn't believe it when I heard what was printed in this article. I could write a very long letter trying to articulate all that is wrong with what was written, but I think countless people have already done so quite adequately already. I mostly just want to express my disappointment and shame that the paper of this great university, which I have attended for nearly seven years now, would publish something so backward.
Articles like these make me question the value of the 1st Amendment and most certainly the value of The Daily.
To Meghan E.
“Oh, and by the way, if, like most straight boys you're convinced gay men are out to convert you, let me reassure you: you're not that cute.”
So if I understand correctly, you make sweeping and disparaging claims about the majority of straight men without any citation or evidence, and then proceed into unrelated ad hominem attacks
If you wish Mr. Fay to aspire to higher journalistic practices you would be advised to do so yourself.
According to Mr. Fay, "Homosexuality is more of an emotional condition... it’s a problem that needs to be dealt with, not denied."
As a clinical psychologist, I would like to direct Mr. Fay to positions articulated by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics that being gay is not an "emotional condition" (any more than being straight is an "emotional condition") and I would also encourage him to avail himself of the latest scientific evidence that sexuality is influenced by genetics the next time he considers putting pen to paper on this subject.
If gay and lesbian persons have a "problem," it is because we are treated as second-class citizens. Most states have no workplace protections for sexual minorities, which means that a person can be fired for nothing more than being (perceived as) gay. Almost all of them have amendments excepting committed same-sex couples from enjoying the legal rights as committed opposite-sex couples, and by extension same-sex couples are also denied the well-documentedf psychological benefits that are obtained through marriage. Even though hate crimes in general are on the decline, hate crimes against gay and lesbian persons have increased. Articles such as Mr. Fay's, and the offensive graphic accompanying it, serve only to further devalue and disparage gay people in the eyes of his readers.
Mr. Fay also wrote, "There’s also a social consideration. The potential of open homosexuality for creating social dysfunction has been made manifest in the protests against Prop 8 since Nov. 4." Would someone please inform Mr. Fay of the rights to free speech and peaceable assembly, and instruct him as to how these things are necessary in a healthy society? I helped to organize one of these protests and it was a very civil event.
He went on: "Organizations such as the Mormon Church have been intimidated; people who financially supported Prop. 8 have had their names posted on antigayblacklist.com — some have been harassed or even threatened with losing their jobs." It is unfortunate that a few individuals have issued threats, and by and large the gay community disavows their actions. But we do not disavow their anger. The names of prop 8 donators have been made public so that we can choose not to patronize their businesses, since the money we had given them was then used to take our rights away in California.
If Mr. Fay's rights had been taken away, if he were recently married and suddenly found himself facing the possibility of a governmentally-forced divorce like the 18,000 same-sex couples who married before November 4, I have no doubt that he would be just as incensed and heartbroken as we are. If he were wiser, he would be more cautious when throwing his opinion behind such proposals; for, if all it takes is a majority vote to strip someone of a constitutional right, it could easily happen to him next.
Keep it up! Soon we will finally establish a true Gestapo state. Lock the gays up and keep us safe please...
JACKASS
416:
Unlike the git whose article in at issue, I don't claim to be a journalist.
It's quite freeing, really.
Mister Fay,
You are a n00b.
Go home PLZ and don't come out from under that rock until you've evolved.
I'm ashamed that you write for my school.
If I see you or ever run into you, I'm telling everyone around me to stone you.
Mr. Donte Larry,
Are you insane? First, don't put your full name up, because I decided to facebook you to see if you were for real. When I discovered you claimed to be an LSJ major, I vomited a little in my mouth. You will soon find in the LSJ department that not a single professor and few TAs would support your blatantly homophobic and degrading views, nor would they encourage or recognize such blatant megalomania as in your facebook profile. "Donte Larry for President" indeed! Hopefully an LSJ education will make you think critically about why you would endorse bigotry and hatred, and possibly sow a seed of change in your currently empty head.
Is it safe to assume that Fay is also pro-choice and for the death penalty as well?
@ 343 "UWstudent"
And if he is...so what? People have differing opinions from you. You'll need to live with that.
Also, the combo tends to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you want to propagate generalizations, you should at least get them right. :-)
Mr. Fay's title encouraged us to "stop and think about this." It's clearly the case that not many people did so. Is that because they are afraid they'll realize his argument is not such utter nonsense?
Let's look at a few cool-headed, well-thought-out responses to Mr. Fay's article:
"You're a fucking moron. I'm surprised your[sic] able to read your keyboard."
"This is the kind of opinion that leads to violence . . . I want to throw something."
"These desert religion loonies must have the rug pulled out from under them"
"I'm starting a campaign to prevent you from procreating."
"[Fay] clearly harbors some sort of i'll[sic]-will toward the lgbt community at large..."
"I hope the entire UW campus reads this and decides to fuck you up however they can."
"...fuck you for suggesting that marriages outside of traditional church views could violate the first amendment [sic]."
"[Fay] should be failed right out of this University [sic]..."
"...you aren't sharing a respectable opinion, you are simply wrong."
"This comment has been removed by Daily staff. Certain comments may be removed for being exceptionally threatening, libelous, or off-topic."
"Get out of your christian [sic] cave."
"YOU ARE HOMOPHOBIC..."
"This comment has been removed by Daily staff. Certain comments may be removed for being exceptionally threatening, libelous, or off-topic."
"This edition of the paper should be publicly burned in Red Square and the author tied to the back of sheep and dragged!"
"Any state interpretation of marriage that violates traditional church views may well be a violation of the First Amendment. [Repeated 22 times]"
"i[sic] can stop by your house if you want, someone posted your address. i[sic] will bring some friends, i[sic] am sure we will all want to know you would like for us to deal it... if[sic] that doesn't work, maybe we can deal with you..."
"This comment has been removed by Daily staff. Certain comments may be removed for being exceptionally threatening, libelous, or off-topic."
"Wow. You lost me at The Simpsons. Idiot."
"They [The Daily] better fire his [Fay's] ass or they'll have a lawsuit on their hands."
"This comment has been removed by Daily staff. Certain comments may be removed for being exceptionally threatening, libelous, or off-topic."
"...to natalie sikavi[sic]: this is exactly the kind of bullshit that's going to cost you your job. we're[sic] coming for you. be[sic] ready."
"Go Fuck Yourself"
"congratulations jeglum [sic]! you're the worst editor in the history of our rotten newspaper."
"This comment has been removed by Daily staff. Certain comments may be removed for being exceptionally threatening, libelous, or off-topic."
"If this university wasn't so homophobic and racist itself, it SHOULD shut your [The Daily's] whole operation DOWN."
<continued>
"Was their[sic] no editorial oversight?"
"...I do like that the above 'commenters' have posted the authors phone number, address, and other information because maybe he should know what it feels like to be hated because of an 'emotional condition,' as that is surely what the author has. Have a good senior year, John."
"I am all for freedom of speech, but not when that freedom is used to spread hate and lies."
[Paraphrase: you can say whatever you want, as long as I agree with it.]
"PLEAZE[sic] don't let him [Fay] graduate in his current mental condition..."
"I cannot begin to understand what I have just read."
"Nor do I condone violence but there are many of us who feel we've been backed into a corner on this issue."
"Fay, you deserve to get your face beat in, i'm not a violent person but if you say something like that to me in person [sentence appears incomplete]"
"I'm thinking that the author is probably a sheep fucker himself."
"I hope your career is RUINED after this forever."
"John Fay needs to be taken back into freshman comp and horsewhipped."
"Articles like these make me question the value of the 1st Amendment..."
Now, I don't agree with all the arguments that Mr. Fay made, and I would have loved to see a rational discussion in the comments about them. To some degree that was present, but it was generally so buried beneath poor grammar, knee-jerk insults, profanity, and thinly veiled threats that it was hardly worth digging for. Please, people: think before you post. Think about whether you are really going to make an actual contribution to the discussion, or whether you will just help it deteriorate further into the gutter.
And to those who made threats of physical violence, or who argued that Mr. Fay should lose his job or be kicked out of school: do you really mean that? You think that he should lose his job or his health because of an opinion he holds? That's worse than anything you're accusing him of.
Oh, and one more thing - if you're objecting to this article, we already know that you think Mr. Fay is a "bigot", and that I am one too for encouraging you to think about this rationally. You don't need to tell us that again; I think that 66 uses of the word is quite enough for one thread.
I agree with this article in so many ways, but my comment is mainly towards those who disagree. Being a "bigot" and disagreeing are two different things. Fay says in the beginning he respects differences of opinion.
The fact that I DISAGREE with gay marriage has nothing to do with whether or not I DISLIKE gay people, those are completely different! If you were to say you like the color green and I said I dont like it, does that mean I dislike you? Not at all. Its a difference of opinion and taste, but in my opinion, and Mr. Fay which I agree with, of right and wrong.
My disagreement has to do with the ACTION of homosexuality and the legalizing of marriage under such circumstances, NOT the individual.
Has someone posted earlier, how about instead of just attacking this person for THEIR OPINION, we actually DO listen to the title and take the time to STOP AND THINK about it. Even if you agree, at least learn something about why others who vote against gay marriage feel they can or even must. For such "open minded" people, it seems the opposite side is VERY AGGRESSIVELY closed minded.
Reading over the comments....all i can say is wow!
1st off, I AGREE with Fay's article, but this is besides the point.
1st- Isnt the gay/supporting community supposed to be open-minded? And as I see some have already caught on, all these disagreeing comments seem to be very close-minded and angry, but this is the writters OPINION!!! To which he has a right!
2nd-- I see some people are mad that this article was published yet since gays are typically liberal what happened to freedom of speech? Come on now. Being able to say what you want works both ways. There was a time when there was censorship that didnt want to hear what gays had to say, well just like you have freedom to say what you want, you can't take freedom from the straight community to voice our opinions, whether you like them, agree with them or not.
Stop acting like he's out right attacking gay people saying throw them in jail, burn them out of their homes, etc. All he is saying is that he feels gay marriage is wrong, and he has every consitutionally protected, red white n blue, good old usa sanctioned right to say so.
To Meghan E.
"I don't claim to be a journalist."
That's all well and good, unfortunately that does not excuse ad hominem attacks, spreading misinformation, or the hypocrisy in your criticisms of Mr. Fay. Additionally if you are so content to be free of journalistic ethics, why did you take special care to mention: “I used to write for and copy edit the Daily.”
I just looked at 416 note and Meghan E's cuz i'm nosey and I look when people mention someone's name...
Meghan E, are you really of marrying age? The language you use in trying to make your arguments seem incredibly immature and childish for a seemingly grown woman with a husband, sadly they make your argument less effective, i couldnt even focus on your argument, i really dont even remember what you said...i was just suprised at how you so rudely started your ranting.
416....I agree....lol and i think its very funny
"Also, show your support for the beautifully written editorial by Sarah Gaither in support gay marriage:
http://dailyuw.com/2008/11/25/proposi...
And remember that silence is complicity. Fight hate with love."
Quote taken from someone else's comment.
Is her piece "beautifully" written because of her rhetoric, sentence structure, article construction etc....or just because she says what you want to hear?
*rolling my eyes* People are ridiculous.
How about you all learn to live with different opinions hm? You seem to want everyone else to accept yours so bad, why can't you be so kind with others? Or is it we can only respect YOUR opinion, and because ours is different you have the right to disrespect ours?
THINK a little bit more next time, isnt that what this article is about? THINKING?
Thinking? That's exactly the problem in this article. Not much thinking involved, just a long homophobic list from a bigoted individual who I hope his very own God (whom I heard is a God of love and justice) made him impotent so his genetic misgivings stop with him.
And for you 351, you can roll your eyes until you roll in the grave. How's that for an opinion? You're just as ridiculous. I'll accept your opinion only if you'll get married for religious tradition, but give up the over 1,000 federal and state rights associated with marriage. Because honestly, for as long as gays and lesbians pay their taxes you're benefiting from them while denying them their rights and protection as a couple. Can you respect that?
#347, I feel like you have tried to separate a human from their sexuality, when they are intrinsically and completely linked. This is, of course, fallacy. By saying a queer man, woman, or trans person does not deserve the same rights, be it marriage or others, you then link their sexuality to who they are. Your argument begs the question of whether or not homosexuals are entitled to any rights for who they are. You cannot say you love the person and hate their actions when the two are intertwined.
There, I stopped and thought about it. Your argument is wrong. Please start grasping that and quit complaining about intolerance when all your argument (and John Fay's) consist of is intolerance.
350, one of the privileges accrued to age is the ability to call things -- and people -- as they are.
Meghan, you're bitchin'. Call out the BS!
WAY TO GO JOHN! Its awesome how many comments you have recieved!! at a school like UW (LIBERAL) when you get a lot of comments, then you must be saying something great! Keep it up JOHN!!
Dear #342 Nutjobs
What you fail to realize is that I, like Mr. John Fay, am not afraid to stand for what is right and true in the face of such hostile opposition. I refuse to hide behind anonymity. Once again I am unsurprised at the personal attacks used by the left-side, and once again the hypocrisy is all too apparent. You point a negative finger at my ‘degrading views’ but you yourself use statements such as “When I discovered you claimed to be an LSJ major, I vomited a little in my mouth.” and “sow a seed of change in your currently empty head.” Who’s being degrading here? Also, the last 300+ posts have been nothing less than degrading toward Mr. John Fay. Lastly, your remark about my blatant megalomania is just comical. The fact that I’ve set goals to be proactive in politics and have a long-term goal of possibly becoming president is not at all farfetched. Your comment was completely asinine with no merit whatsoever. I really do hope your tact improves before you decide to comment again.
GOOD JOB JOHN!
Keep it coming. People need to hear this. Don't get discouraged.
your article is trash and you should be removed from the daily staff.
To 347 -
You don't like the color green and I do. So you can no longer benefit from having secondary colors in your life, so I'm taking away orange and purple, and you can deal with blue, yellow, and red. Sound about right?
Furthermore, I'm not against you as a person, but disliking green is sin in my God's eyes (whose voice resonates loudly in the classic historical fiction book with plenty of green colored pictures called "This is what people believed in 2,000 years ago; How about today? Let's Play!" on sale at Amazon for $29.99, get 10% off this recession season with coupons earned from stomping Wal-Mart employees on Black Friday because you had to have that Wii) so all this leads to you losing your rights as a US citizen to "the pursuit of any color that suits" under the "full spectrum color clause" because I God Damn say so!
Disliking green is a perversion and it's more of an emotional condition rather than something you are born with (like color blindness or synesthesia). By disliking green you are destroying nature and God's plan for us to live in harmony with trees, plants, and frogs. See how this disrupts the natural order of society?
But I respect your views, your "opinion", though I'll rebutt it with nonsense and pudding-logic that claims something about how if it's not constitutional it doesn't belong in the constitution because the constitution never said that constitutionality conditions that which is aformented in the constitution to be subtracted and re-added with a lollipop (have you read John Fay's argument on the constitution? It really doesn't jive with practicing law, Donte Larry back me up on this!).
347, opinions are opinions. Personally I'm happy this article was printed, so those that care can see the spear-head arguments that sound like a re-hash of the Confederacy (homosexuality is an emotional condition and has no right reserved under our constitution sounds like Africans are sub-human and deserve no protection under our constitution, says God...we all know where that argument went). The article does represent a lack of acceptance for a very real, tax-paying, abiding sub-culture of American Society; no one can force John Fay, Bob, Donte, or anyone else to accept. But they have no honored precedence to take away the rights - the 1100+ rights - married couples get from our Union. Just as my ridiculous anecdote about green illustrates the ludicrous, rhetorical argument posed in these forums.
(continued)
Yes, the UW is a liberal campus. Why is this part of your argument? John Fay pissed off a bunch of people, and the overall response has been negative, but the majority have been sincere rejections of the overall argument, with minorities in both rash, harsh, foul-mouthed attacks (probably more of these since this is an anonymous internet forum, but hey, its Seattle!) and well-thought out, UW educated points of debate. You arguing on the principle of argument against the former minority is like a pharmacist arguing with an angry yuppy that he can't get drugs without a prescription.
To 348 -
Just as John Fay has the right to speak his opinion, though somewhat based on nonsense (emotional condition? beastiality? huh?) rather than actual gray areas of the law (which exist, though only with out-of-state recognitions and a handful of others, not the constitutional oatmeal John Fay whipped up), homosexuals have the right to Government certified and Constitution-soon-to-be-approved unions (what about the Bill of Rights could you interpret that would lead you to think this right, in a secular state, should not exist?).
To 351 -
Your seeming respect via John Fay's article smacks of degradation for what has proven to be determined through genetics, and has an air of intolerance for many of your fellow students. Why is being gay wrong? He could have said simply because his faith guides him to believe this, which is opinion in our, again, secular gov't, but maybe fact in his and other's minds. But instead he compares homosexuality to beastiality and pedophiles... I could say all Christian Conservatives are doing the work of a secret alien brotherhood designed to cause ongoing war to halt human evolution, from my God William Bramley (Gods of Eden 1977...wow, I'm citing things now), but it's a far stretch that most would consider nonsense (though Bramley offers a great read) and would evoke anger from devout Christians. Now you could argue that I'm comparing homosexuality to Christiology, and that may piss you (or if not your, surely some on here) off because God is real and good and being gay is a choice and wrong! But why would I do that when I could simply point out that the US gov't doesn't (in most states) recognize either as being better or worse, but regards both as protected under our Constitution. Revision: soon to be on the homosexuality; Christians have the benefit of 1,400 years of acceptance.
So now why would those pissed of people want to give John Fay respect, if you put yourself in their shoes, even though he deserves it for all the good he's accidentally done by awakening this issue on campus?
To 353 A split hair -
I agree. It's original too for this forum, nice.
To Donte L. -
I would argue the degradation began with John Fay. I believe the official Daily rebuttal was quite the opposite of mean-spirited. And read my ideas of attacking liberals above. I don't want to type it out again.
"Once people become accustomed to violating certain social norms, they tend to feel less constrained about breaking others."
Hell yes they do. How else are we supposed to progress in society, to reshape it into something where everybody enjoys equal freedoms?
An emotional condition? Lol.
My friends, what is journalism? Would any respected newspaper publish this opinion piece? No. This article is offensive for its sheer lack of evidence and logical (not to mention grammatical) consistency. Can't you tell it has nothing to do with gays or gay marriage? Aren't articles, even if they're opinion pieces, still supposed to be based on some sort of research and evidence? If I wanted to write about how Dinosaurs existed 4,000 years ago, I would still make a falsifiable argument (for example, creationists typically argue that carbon dating is flawed). That's fine. What I would not do is just invent my own reason and say, "Dinosaurs were really just mammals in disguise." That is essentially what Fay has done. Gays really have "more of an emotional condition"--what does that even mean? Do I have gay emotions? WTF? The editor who let Fay's piece slide should be fired. And let's not forget that Fay is being paid for being a horrible, HORRIBLE, editorialist (to say nothing of his bigotry). You guys are paying this guy to write horrible articles. You're entitled to insist he get fired, and you're entitled to change the content of the Daily. The UW Daily is not a bastion of journalistic excellence (case in point: this article), and so it shouldn't pretend to care about free speech, press, etc., and it certainly shouldn't defend itself on those grounds. The Daily has no "journalistic integrity." A journalist who says homosexuality is "more of an emotional condition", and the editor who lets him write it, has no respect for journalism, nor for the students at this university. Having journalistic integrity would require an understanding of concepts like evidence, which Fay and the Daily's editors apparently lack. Fox News wouldn't even put this shit on the air. This is a joke, and we should all be embarrassed as a university. If you want to do something about it, change the Daily management.
Is your editor fucking retarded?
Seriously, who publishes this kind of bullshit?
Dear Mr. Fay,
I read your recent article regarding gay marriage. As a third generation graduate of the University of Washington, I was surprised to learn that some of the archaic thinking that existed many years ago is still present on campus. Thankfully, you received some thoughtful responses that added balance to your point of view.
I am all for good debate and examination of important issues. So this discussion is all good. However, I am disappointed. I thought that at this point we would be a bit more evolved. Traditions can be good, as they make us feel secure in our actions and give historical reference to our present day. However, they can also impair new thought and restrict us from progressing.
Do you believe our world should remain the same as it was 2000 years ago? Do you really believe that the persecutions based on religion, wealth, race, and gender that ruled the day then, should exist now? As intelligent beings, we strive to learn, evolve, and grow. To cling to traditions that no longer reflect the society we live in, or do not truly represent ALL members of our society, is small thinking indeed.
Laws should be made to protect people, not to exclude them. Is it right for lawmakers to protect the status quo at all costs, or to improve the lives of the people they serve? Today there are many issues that challenge us. Giving two individuals who love one another an opportunity to express their love to the each other both publicly and legally, should not be one of them.
The amount of hatred coming from people who are constantly whining about "tolerance" is unbelievable.
It was an OPINION piece people. I mean, give it a rest. Damn.
Nick, you don't screw with the gays. Automatic, serious, major drama.
We won't back down until there's a resignation or an apology. Preferably both.
To #367,
It's too controversial to be published -- read #364, as I agree wholeheartedly with that.
Did you READ the opinion? Damn.
When I first learned of this editorial, and the opposition to it, I thought to myself, 'well, that's what free speech is all about' - equality of expression of ideas in the press. Then I read the article; and I fell off my chair! I am shocked that the editors of The Daily would publish this diatribe of mis-guided hate mongering! I have heard intelligent arguments for and against Prop 8, all revolving around the constitutionality of the actual proposition, not individual prejudice and ignorance. I would encourage the Daily to look closer at what they print and be a bit more responsible, because what you print does reflect on your publication.
For the record, over 30 years ago many scientists, psychologists, and physicians determined, with much validity, that a person's sexual preference is NOT an "emotional problem". I suggest that Mr. Fay actually read something that is dated after 1975 and join us here in the present.
Ugh, people... this is just a baseless, stupid article that shouldn't have been published --it's not about respecting gays, or whehter the author is right or wrong. The article shouldn't have been published for the reasons #364 said.
What the author says is totally serious. Why can't you "gay activists" see the truth in all of it?
I thought this was an opinion piece, what happened to free speech? I guess that UW does not encourage thinking and expression but spoon feeding and oppression.
Gay people and their supporters can say the vilest things about religious people, they can disown their own history and discredit our culture yet if anyone disagrees with them, they descend like NAZI'S! Maybe anyone who believes that marriage is defined by one woman and one man should be put into re-education camps? Think of how many jobs B.O. could create. That is what Hitler did; do you think he was secretly gay? They did wear a lot of leather and were snappy dressers.
The author and anyone who agrees with him and his views are douche bags.
It is incredible how little tolerance the opposition to this piece have for the writer of it or those agreeing with it. You are hypocrites if you demand tolerance but cannot give it to those with whom you disagree. Reacting with hate certainly does not demonstrate your proclaimed 'well educated' viewpoint.
#364, Reece, I thank you. You made all of the necessary points and suggest a pro active course of action.
Fire 'em. Because I for one do not want my tuition money going to pay idiots who can't write. Welcome to journalism. Free Speech has nothing to do with it; this is a matter of pure and simple bad writing, backed by bad ideas.
And #373, are you trying to insinuate that not only will gay marriage lead to Barack Obama revealing himself as a gay Nazi, but that religious freedom in a democracy which honors the separation of church and state should hold on to an antiquated (not to mention deeply culturally biased) idea of "marriage" despite the existence of a pluralistic society?
In other words, are you for real telling us that we're gonna toss out all the values and ideals that made our Constitution and Declaration "revolutionary" back in the day because a minority of religious nuts are somehow offended by the idea of gay marriage?
Do you want a job at the Daily? They might be opening up a position soon... Oh, and if we're complying with the medieval, European bible, I'd like to ask that all men who are opposed to gay marriage stop shaving. Because that's how you prove your devout faith in God. It says so in more than one place in the Bible. Including a few verses down from where it condemns homosexuality. Jus' sayin. Don't pick and choose.
I'm going to leave it with Jon Stewart, who asked once [sic] "Are they going to make us marry gay? Because if they're not, I don't see why everyone's so upset about it."
#376 - you're a cute little witty thing aren't you?! So evolved and smart like, staying up late getting your eduction from the honorable and great Jon Stewart. Ride that pool of hate and self worship all the way to the sewers of the underworld. And remember, it was all your choosing...
PS - you missed the point, the boat and the object all together. You should be grateful for your past for you are standing on it... Those horrible Christians brought you forgiveness, education, hospitals and turn-the-other-cheek to start with. So let me make this very clear: you should be thankful you live in a country that allows all opinions to be expressed otherwise you have fascism (see WWII). If you stop all dissenting views you become the oppressor not the so called enlighten person you think you are.
What the hell is up with this animal graphic? What kind of small-minded idiot created this? You can take this shit and shove it up Rick Santorum's ass.
Colleen, we're not self-hating.
To all the foul-mouthed responders: you guys are so PC you can't stand anything else. May i suggest it is you who live in a cave? One point of view is all you have. Give me some logic and let's have a true debate. Do your history. The findings of 1975 had little science behind them. Propaganda, yes.
I agree with everything in this article. John Fay is a genius! Best article EVER.
To all the pro John Fayers who are lashing back at the original backlash against John Fay's article:
The themes I see are roughly all the same, something about arguing for anit-prop 8s to open their minds and try to accept more than one point of view, and something about being happy with what we have. This is ridiculous, you're making an argument that our argument for having an open mind is close minded! Hypocrisy at it's worst.
Religion is a choice, and apparently to all you folks, so is homosexuality, right? Apparently you're dismissing the science.. So why should the US gov't give a damn one over the other? Because we were founded on Christianity? We were also founded on slave-holders and a voting system that excluded women. Goddamn, you are the ones who should open your minds. I thought Fay's article was bad enough, but the counter-argument to provoked anger is even worse.
To 380, present a coherent argument not backed by theological claims and maybe you can have your debate.
I disagree very much with this article, but it's his opinion. He has the right to express it.
383: Yeah, and it's everyone else's right to express their opinion about his opinion, even if their opinion is that he shouldn't be allowed to express his opinion. GOT AN OPINION ON THAT?
Anne:
In fact he has the right to express his opinion. However, not every opinion is born the same and there's such thing as an informed opinion and an opinion based on ignorance and prejudices like this one.
When my parents found out about my "problem" they sent me to the counseling group exodus international to try to "fix" me.
Here is what the founders of that program have to say now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=428Djv...
I am never giving the UW any money or attending any of it's sports events, and I am encouraging everyone I know and work with to do the same. Shame on you for publishing this drivel
Yous know just 'cause yous is born a certain way doesn't makes it right or nuttin.
Is it appropriate for today's pluralistic, progressive, evolved and advanced society? That is the entire argument. Birth does not give anyone a free ride (pardon the example) to do whatever the hell they want to. All the child molesters love your argument Brandon. Why is everyone trying to "fix"? What do you have against them? What if the child wanted it!!!??? Are you a child love racist? What about their civil rights you right- wing bastard???!!! Join NAMBLA today and fight the oppression!
I realize this is an editorial, but shouldn't an opinion expressed in a publication produced at a research university a have some basis in fact? The medical and scientific communities have studied homosexuality for years and their research thoroughly disagrees with your assessment of homosexuality as an "emotional disorder." In fact here are a few of the institutions which disagree with your assessment:
The American Psychological Association
The American Academy of Pediatrics
The American Psychiatric Association
The American Psychoanalytic Association
The American Anthropological Association
I am quite sure you would find a number of faculty right here at the UW whose research contradicts your unfounded opinion.
Check out this YouTube video for a brief primer on the scientific evidence regarding homosexuality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_gEiR...
As for whether this is a constitutional issue, you might ask how heterosexual marriage ever became a governmental entitlement? If marriage, as you see it, is rooted in the Christian church (or any other organization of faith) then why should the government offer tax benefits, social security benefits, child protections, and estate benefits to married couples? Given that these legal and economic privileges ARE granted to married heterosexual couples, IT IS a constitutional issue. No citizen of this country should be denied rights afforded to other committed couples and families.
You say that the 2,000 year institution of marriage as we know it would be irreparably damaged if we were to allow consenting adults of the same gender to marry. You seem to be forgetting all the ways in which HETEROSEXUAL marriage has changed in the last 2,000 years. Marriage is no longer a simply a legal contract between two families in which the woman (or women!) are sold for a price. Nor is marriage any longer a commitment for life as 50% of heterosexual marriages in this country end in divorce. Marriage is no longer restricted to people of the same race or same nationality. With all these changes it is absolutely absurd to hold up marriage as a static, iconic institution.
Finally, social protest and unrest as in the peaceful nationwide protests of the passage of Prop 8 is not "social dysfunction," but rather democracy at work! Of course those who disagree with the supporters of Prop 8 should not (and have not) resort to physical violence, but all of the tactics that you mentioned, "intimidation, blacklisting, threatened with losing their jobs," AND FAR WORSE have been used against the homosexual community for decades. Perhaps you are unaware of the savage beating deaths, hate crimes and discrimination that the homosexual community has suffered.
Before writing your next opinion article do a little scientific and historic research. And to The Daily editors: consider a closer editing of what you publish.
Thanks to all the responders for the vibrant debate.
John Fay's article is on point and not hate speech in the least. The GLBT community and their supporters consistently try to use intimidation as a means to get their way, but Fay has done nothing wrong here but use clearly thought out logic.
Rock on.
You are a bigot.
Have a nice life.
I'd love to get a hold of the IPs of all these commenters... the sheer number of people insisting how Fay was just using "logic" makes me skeptical. Maybe I just refuse to believe people are THAT stupid, but I'm pretty sure Fay is just being insecure and feels the need to constantly reiterate his expert use of logic against the rancorous LGBT community by posting under a bunch of different names.
What pains me most about this bigoted editorial is the poor argumentation it displays. Gay marriage will lead to legalized pedophillia? Really? State views in contrast with Christian values violate the First Ammendment? What!? Fay did not display himself to be a thoughtfull opponent of gay marriage (of which I will admit there are some). Rather, he approached the issue with an extreme emotionalism and prejudice that clouded any judgement he might have once had.
an emotional condition?
social dysfunction?
really?
this is so dumb i am not even going to take the time to comment further.
advice: open your mind. stop discriminating. you can write your opinion but what you back it up with, let it have substance. not this crap.
Oh Daily, how you disappoint with allowing this discriminating article to be published. Think smart.
This is ridiculous, but Fay did a good job proving he's a bigot and a homophobe. Pat yourself on the back.
Free speech is free speech. I'm glad the Daily was willing to run your piece, Mr. Fay.
But you're wrong, and thankfully history will show that in the end.
Fay has willingly opened himself to a remarkable amount of public scrutiny, and this article will follow him for the rest of his life. Anyone who wants any information on John Fay, including potential employers or admissions officers, will have access to this article (and rest assured, they look). Regardless of whether his opinion should have been published, and regardless of whether he's right, those who disagree with him may ultimately wield control over his future. I would never hire or associate myself with John Fay, and it has nothing to do with his personal beliefs. If this article proves anything, it's merely that John Fay is socially inept. He lacks concern or awareness for the feelings and impressions of others, and he's blithefully unaware of the consequences this bigoted and woefully uninformed article holds for his future. Moreover, he displays astonishingly poor argumentative and analytical skills. This doesn't boat well for John Fay, and so good luck to him! May he receive his just dessert. The Daily should have had the foresight to prevent a dumb kid from irreparably damaging his own future, but good going anyway, Daily staff!
At #390 Ambra,
"The GLBT community and their supporters consistently try to use intimidation as a means to get their way, but Fay has done nothing wrong here but use clearly thought out logic."
Are you kidding me? "Clearly thought out logic?"
I would not wish to see you working for any political cabinet or judiciary system.
What the hell is your major? Interpretive Yoga?
Certainly this article, and all articles like this for that matter, is controversial. Everyone in this world has different beliefs and vies and opinions. It is what makes each of us, "individual."
If one were to label me, I would be known as a Christian. I go to church every Sunday, I worship and I pray to God. I even direct their choir where I worship. But I would never assume the right to judge another person, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Straight. Does it hurt others if there is a gay couple that lives down the road? It certainly doesn't hurt me. Does it influence my children? Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't make them worse for what they are.
I could not tell you where I stand on the fence. I like to consider myself simply neutral. I neither support Gay marriage, nor do I oppose it. I simply don't care. It is a personal choice for the couple, for two individual people. There are more people like me than you can imagine. I am certainly, by no means, liberal. I am very conservative in many of my views of what should and should not be happening in the world. But this "Gay Marriage" thing that is happening currently is ridiculous. There is no question in my mind that one day it will fall into what we consider "normality."
Do you remember when the African American people fought for their right to sitizenship? Do you remember the stories of the women of this nation fighting for equal rights? Both of those minorities prevailed upon the nation, and the world, that the United States of America is a country of constant change.
Look at those times. There was so much opposition, so much resistance to that change, that it took decades for each individual minority to prevail. Thanks to those and the history of those movements, I have no doubt in my mind that this "equal homosexual rights" movement will eventually prove fruitful. There are simply so many people in this nation that agree with or participate in this movement that, regardless of the resistance, the movement will come to fruition.
Look now, my friends, at what we have today. After the women of this nation gained their rights, there are still individuals and small groups that oppose them. But instead of women being part of the minority, it is now the opposing groups that are in minority.
Same with the African American equal rights movement. After the African American people of this nation gained their rights, they were no longer in the minority. There are still individuals and groups of people who oppose them, but those groups are now in minority.
Look to the future and you will see that the American People on a large scale will eventually accept the Homosexual people of this nation. There will always be opposition, but I know in my heart that the opposition will become the minority.
Please write further articles detailing the unarguable link between two consenting adults of the same gender making love/getting married and the subsequent (resultant) social acceptance of bestiality and pedophilia.
In specific, please answer these particular questions:
1.) Given that children eventually grow up, why would a pedophile want to marry one? Why do your arguments always just expand into comical foolishness upon the least bit of inspection?
2.) Can animals and children give informed, legal consent to anything? Is the gay marriage debate even over consent?
3.) Since the concept of numerous animistic 'spirits' predates Judaism and Christianity, do Judaism and Christianity have no right to call themselves religions? Do you seriously believe that the date at which an idea was developed grants it any sort of import whatsoever?
4.) Is this all just the result of frustration over your hilarious last name in the context of your absurd worldview?
Please respond ASAP,
Liz.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
96 Comments
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#301 Will
(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name)
on November 28, 2008 at 9:34 a.m.